lawandorderfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Jdogno7
Antisemitism Every source I have seen is defining antisemitism as "extreme hatred or prejudice against Jews". Not once have I seen the definition also include Muslims. I'm not sure where you're getting your sources from, and it matters not if Muslims are considered Semites. We go by popular definition here. "Streamlining signature" If you're going to keep so-called streamlining your signature, by removing the two hyphens at the beginning of each and every one, why put in the hyphens in the first place? There is a signature button at the top left corner of the page every time you're editing something; use it instead. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:04, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Hey, I demand an answer. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:16, January 27, 2017 (UTC) ::I gave you an answer on your talk page. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:20, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :::I noticed. Hopefully you put my advice to good use. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:21, January 27, 2017 (UTC) What advice would that be? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:27, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Semites Semites would be considered a member of a group of people who speak one of 20-25+ languages (Ahlamu, Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian), Amharic, Ammonite, Amorite, Arabic, Aramaic/Syriac, Canaanite (Phoenician/Carthaginian/Hebrew), Chaldean, Eblaite, Edomite, Ge'ez, Maltese, Mandaic, Moabite, Sutean, Tigre and Tigrinya, and Ugaritic, among others.) Out of these only Arabic, Hebrew and Maltese are still used. With Arabic it is tied to both a race and a religion but not synonymously. Arabic was in use before Islam was founded. There are plenty of Arabs and non-Arabs who speak Arabic but are not Muslim. Hebrew is tied to a religion but not a race. You can have Jews of any variation of White European, African Black, Indigenous North and South American, Asian and even Australian Aboriginal. And just saying that there could be converts from any racial denomination, so thus the language is tied to a religion. Maltese is tied to a race but not a religion. Just saying that Malta's main religion is Christianity but Maltese is not globally a sacred language for Christianity while Hebrew is for Judaism and Arabic for Islam. The word AntiSemitism for how it is used is a misnomer. "Anti" means against and "Semetic" I have explained above. Thus my point. Jdogno7 (talk) 08:07, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :Antisemitic is being popularly defined as "anti-Jew". Take it up with the people who defined it in the first place. Until then, we stick with antisemitic. Cut it out, or I will report you. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:15, January 16, 2017 (UTC) I would take it up with Heinrich von Treitschke who made the term synonymous with hatred against Jews but he died in 1896. Jdogno7 (talk) 08:27, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :Start a campaign against the accuracy of the term. Do whatever. But for now, the term is undisputed and is appropriate for usage. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:29, January 16, 2017 (UTC) ::I must agree that the term is being used as is generally understood. 31dot (talk) 12:54, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :::Thank you. :) UnSub-Zero (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :::But Anti-Jew is more appropriate for usage. So why can't it be used? Jdogno7 (talk) 21:35, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :::Should I take the fact that you did not respond to my above argument as a sign of agreement or apathy? Jdogno7 (talk) 04:58, January 24, 2017 (UTC) ::::Read the whole discussion. An admin just agreed that "antisemitic" is being used as is generally understood, so therefore it's appropriate. Anti-Jew is apparently only your opinion. UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:22, January 24, 2017 (UTC) :::::Admins are not always right about everything. Jdogno7 (talk) 02:40, January 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::And you are? UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:11, January 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::::I have never claimed to never be wrong. But you have yet to give a logical argument that is sound and solid. Jdogno7 (talk) 04:23, January 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::I did. Read the whole discussion again and come back to me. UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:25, January 25, 2017 (UTC) I have red the whole discussion. But where is it? Jdogno7 (talk) 04:35, January 25, 2017 (UTC) Use of first, middle and last names You have reported me because I disagree with you? Jdogno7 (talk) 07:21, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Your reasoning is very poor. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:24, January 27, 2017 (UTC) How so? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:11, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :What do you mean "how so"? UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:12, January 27, 2017 (UTC) ::I mean explain what is wrong with my reasoning. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:14, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :::You claim surnames pose a problem to grammar yet I don't see how. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:15, January 27, 2017 (UTC) ::::I did not say that. I meant when talking about two or more characters who have the same last name that it becomes confusing. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:18, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :::::Well, you still said "grammar"; you should've clarified more. Anyway, it's not confusing to me, and I just fixed it. So problem solved. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:20, January 27, 2017 (UTC) ::::::When did I say grammar as a reason? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:22, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :::::::For the love of God... UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:24, January 27, 2017 (UTC) I checked. The grammar issue was to do with adding an s to "Amanda'". Jdogno7 (talk) 11:25, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Streamlining signature I do not remove the hyphens the first time because I do not want to accidentally erase part of the signature. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:19, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Blocked I have blocked you for edit warring. This is not the forum to change how society uses any term- or more specifically, how Law and Order used the term. If you continue to edit war after the block, you will be blocked for longer. 31dot (talk) 11:34, January 27, 2017 (UTC) "I have blocked you for edit warring. This is not the forum to change how society uses any term- or more specifically, how Law and Order used the term. If you continue to edit war after the block, you will be blocked for longer.": "I have blocked you for edit warring.", How am I edit warring? "This is not the forum to change how society uses any term- or more specifically, how Law and Order used the term.", What are you mad about there? Is it because I wrote this: "Why not? If a term is used in an inaccurate manner even by the majority of the human populace, then those who are aware of the correct usage should try to encourage others to use it more accurately. Does not LAO SVU encourage the idea of overcoming ignorance? Jdogno7 (talk) 09:18, January 27, 2017 (UTC) "If you continue to edit war after the block, you will be blocked for longer.", What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that I can't defend my opinion on a given matter? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:53, January 27, 2017 (UTC) You posted to the Memory Alpha test wiki. First, that is a test wiki and not the actual Memory Alpha; Second, issues with this wiki should not be carried over to other wikis, they should be dealt with here. I have kept your ability to edit this page if you wish to comment (though it can be removed if needed). 31dot (talk) 14:50, January 27, 2017 (UTC) "I have kept your ability to edit this page if you wish to comment (though it can be removed if needed).": "I have kept your ability to edit this page if you wish to comment...", I had no way of knowing that. "(though it can be removed if needed).", Is that meant to be a threat? Are you saying that if I write something that you don't like, you will block me completely? Jdogno7 (talk) 01:57, January 28, 2017 (UTC) Edit warring is repeatedly reversing an edit or edits that one made to a page in order to protect them. You did so at Mitch Carroll and other pages. This is generally considered disruptive; once a disagreement about an edit is known, the user attempting to make a change (you, in this case) must start a discussion on the relevant article talk page and attempt to gain consensus for it. Failing to do so in this case is enough to block you; furthermore, you seem to have a broader issue with the use of the term "anti-semite" or "anti-semetic" by society as a whole; this small corner of the internet isn't the forum to get people to use the term as you feel it should be; we use it 1) as the Law and Order shows used it, and 2) as society understands it. Using this wiki as a platform for social change isn't in keeping with its purpose, which is to create and maintain an encyclopedia about Law and Order- which is another reason to block you. You can defend and post your opinion on talk pages, but you cannot continually reverse removals of your edit just because you think they are correct. You must discuss them- and if the discussion does not go your way, you must respect that. 31dot (talk) 15:02, January 27, 2017 (UTC) "Edit warring is repeatedly reversing an edit or edits that one made to a page in order to protect them.": Understood. "You did so at Mitch Carroll and other pages.": How so? "This is generally considered disruptive; once a disagreement about an edit is known, the user attempting to make a change (you, in this case) must start a discussion on the relevant article talk page and attempt to gain consensus for it.": I did discuss the issue about the specifics of AntiSemitism. "Failing to do so in this case is enough to block you; furthermore, you seem to have a broader issue with the use of the term "anti-semite" or "anti-semetic" by society as a whole; this small corner of the internet isn't the forum to get people to use the term as you feel it should be; we use it 1) as the Law and Order shows used it, and 2) as society understands it.": How did I fail "to do so in this case"? "Using this wiki as a platform for social change isn't in keeping with its purpose, which is to create and maintain an encyclopedia about Law and Order- which is another reason to block you.": This is not about political correctness. This is about technical correctness. "You can defend and post your opinion on talk pages, but you cannot continually reverse removals of your edit just because you think they are correct.": I gave reasons for my changes. "You must discuss them- and if the discussion does not go your way, you must respect that.": I did and do discuss them. I do respect that. Jdogno7 (talk) 05:08, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :You made the same edit to Mitch Carroll five times, three on the same day; both of which would be enough to get you blocked on Wikipedia. 31dot (talk) 09:20, January 28, 2017 (UTC) I did not revert back the edit without asking for clarification or giving an explanation to back up my point. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:09, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :It's still edit warring. Once an edit is disputed, it should be left alone and discussed. 31dot (talk) 20:38, January 28, 2017 (UTC) Okay. I understand. I will take note of that in future. Can I come back if I can prove I am capable of doing that? Jdogno7 (talk) 00:09, January 29, 2017 (UTC) "I highly urge you to restrict Jdogno7's access to his talk page while he's blocked.": I knew it was a vendetta. "I was merely posting my opinion about if you should lift the block on him and he is constantly trying to suppress it by undoing my messages.": You are trying to assert authority over me that you do not have thus you are being a bully. "He has also accused me of being a bully, even though I have a right to pitch my opinion in talk page discussions, which he denies exists.": I have accused you of being a bully because you are acting like one. You may have a right to express an opinion, you do not have a right to obnoxiously harass others. "I am really sick of his behavior, and I would urge you to extend his block if I could as well.": Again. A vendetta. This is in accordance with UnSub-Zero's message posted at 07:08, January 29, 2017 (UTC) For the above stated reasons I have removed the messages posted at 04:22, January 29, 2017 (UTC), 06:46, January 29, 2017 (UTC) and 06:50, January 29, 2017 (UTC). It is harassment! "Now he is being contradictory.": How so? "He claims I'm bullying him, yet he keeps removing my messages on his talk page when I haven't removed any of his messages on his talk page or mine AT ALL.": I have not sent you harassing messages. "I find this guy so unbearable at this point.": You became intolerant of me the moment you posted the following: "I am really starting to get ticked off by this guy. Please respond ASAP. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:26, January 27, 2017 (UTC) This in accordance with the message posted by UnSub-Zero at 07:29, January 29, 2017 (UTC) To 31dot Can you please get UnSub-Zero to leave me alone? Jdogno7 (talk) 09:56, January 29, 2017 (UTC) :I believe that, as on Wikipedia, a user is able to remove content from their own user talk page- though it is considered an indication that they read it. I have no issue with Jdogno7 removing content from this page. 31dot (talk) 10:42, January 29, 2017 (UTC) :I would also recommend that you both take a break from interacting with each other(even after this block is over) until you are able to constructively. Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until that point. 31dot (talk) 10:48, January 29, 2017 (UTC) Notice You are still edit warring; if you continue to edit war, I will block you as well. If you revert an edit you see as problematic, and that is reverted, you should start discussing it, not revert it yourself a second time. 31dot (talk) 02:34, February 6, 2017 (UTC) Full first name vs. nickname I didn't watch these episodes, so I have no idea what they were called. But isn't it in my understanding that we call characters by their nickname instead of their full name, especially if said nickname is used more commonly in the episodes the characters appeared? UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:40, February 14, 2017 (UTC) What do you mean? --Jdogno7 (talk) 05:34, February 14, 2017 (UTC)